The goal isn't to stop terrorism, or drug trafficking, etc. It's to curb opposition. There's very little difference between someone that's anti-american but keeps their opinions to themself, and someone that has no opinions. Why do you think China cracks down on speech? Is it for shits-and-giggles?
Perhaps you think it's anti-American to believe that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. Perhaps I think it's anti-American to believe that the Jan 6 rioters should have been pardoned.
I'd certainly expect visitors to be held to the same standards as the natives. This is the problem, as a US citizen I don't want to be respectful and quiet, especially when I disagree with my government.
> I'd certainly expect visitors to be held to the same standards as the natives.
Visitors are held to a higher standard than natives. Visitors do not have control, a vote, etc: they are temporarily permitted by the privilege of policy at the time.
> as a US citizen I don't want to be respectful and quiet, especially when I disagree with my government.
Good, don't be! You're not at risk of having a visa revoked or go unissued.
Telling the US government it's broken is a favor to the US government. Freedom of speech is a gift to both the people of this country and the institution itself, helping it be pure and accountable. It's the force that prevents us from becoming like China.
Those who seek to stop that regulating force are undermining what makes America great. Where those voices of dissent were born isn't pertinent.
This is akin to the fallacy of saying that the accountability of "real name" policies on web forums make higher quality comments, and then you actually look at the contents of Faceboot. I mean, actual US citizens just voted this tiny-minded failure of a "president" in for the second time, because apparently he hadn't damaged the country enough the first time. Having a stake didn't help there, right? Either people are unaware they are harming themselves (stupidity/anti-intellectualism), don't care because others are getting harmed "more" (spite), or are in social media bubbles pushed by hostile actors (agent provocateurs don't actually need physical presence).
I feel like this is a ridiculous bad-faith argument. You know damned well that banning people from the country for having a JD vance meme on their phone is not stopping international agents. Arguing by presently demonstrably false hypotheticals as though they were reality makes me think it's a waste of everybody's breath talking to you.
It would be a stupid position. I was failing to explain that not all rights like the freedom of speech necessarily make sense to apply to foreigners who are given the privilege to enter the country. I am not necessarily firm in this position the other poster made an argument that they can speak because what does it matter which is a good point.
Okay but that's not what this is about. This is saying that a foreigner cannot express private thoughts online at any point before they enter the United States.
I assume someone who goes by "15155" would believe that having private conversations online can be useful. Or do you want to post your identifying information?
You do you, and we'll have the parties at my house then. Enjoy quietly playing Catan or whatever.
Your extrapolation to the national level is fallacious. Many of our academic institutions were deliberately hosting foreigners, with the explicit goal of being melting pots of ideas. That gave the US an exceptional cultural cachet around the globe. This whole thing is an exercise in attacking and destroying our traditional distributed institutions in favor of centralized autocratic control.
Which elected a democratically-elected representative.
That is how democracies work.
If there's anything the executive has power over besides commander in chief, it would be leader in chief of defining what is actually, American.
The fact that prior presidents have actually abdicated this important role, doesn't mean it didn't exist. This is why traditions of the State of the Union, etc exist. The executive gets to call the plays towards unity for Americanism.
discriminating in employment due to one's affiliation is illegal in state and federal employment [1]. That does not mean one can break ToS and for example, publish on a massive public platform, your private opinion (which can be misconstrued as your employer's). Most employers have ToS against online activity during employment, for that reason.
It is also illegal to do the same for students. [2]
Faculty is already protected under tenure rules. And even for the nontenured, who really needs protecting ? Only 5.7% of all faculty are registered as conservative as of 2020 [3]
My point remains. "Filtering out" is illegal. Setting the stage on what is american, is not.
When it comes to allowing foreighn students to come to US, which from my understanding is a likely path to citizenship, the executive branch gets to decide, which is basically elected by 51% of population every 4 years.
I prefer the exec branch over no purity test, or delegating to some other "expert" institution.
51% of the voting population. Not the majority of the population. Big difference in numbers there, only 65.3% participated. So, less than a third of Americans voted for the current president… why people don’t vote, I’ll never understand.
Your deportation hearing is now scheduled for next week for anti Americanism disguised as jingoistic patriotism. Hopefully there’s a country that will accept you but if not there are some extraterritorial islands we can parachute you on to
It truly does not matter how this opinion can shift with the political climate: foreigners aren't citizens, no matter how much folks would like this to be the case.
> We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.
Reagan is a hypocritical cunt of course, but how far we've fallen that now you might as well put a chain around Lady Liberty's neck, pull it down like the statues of Saddam Hussein or Assad (or I guess hanging is more appropriate, since the spiritual successors of the Confederancy is now in power), and replace it with a statue of redneck lady giving foreigners the middle finger, with "Fuck off!" written on the base.
Ah yes, because we don't automatically tolerate foreign political activists (or intelligence operatives, who cares, right?), freedom is all but lost, right?
You have managed to conflate vocally anti-genocidal students (exercising their universal human right to freedom of assembly) with "foreign political activists" (as if they came to the US just to try and help us stop enabling genocide) - and then leaped straight to "intelligence operators".
You also seem to be all over this thread insisting that these violations of human rights will only ever be applied to foreigners - even as the executive branch openly works to redefine who counts as a foreigner.
> I don't want foreign students (or otherwise) being "vocal" for literally any reason whatsoever.
Your opinion doesn't trump universal human rights. Nor should it.
> Go to school, become a citizen if you wish, and then participate in the political process.
What if the political issues affect you as a visa holder? Have you actually thought this though?
> I consider the case at hand, not a slippery slope of hypotheticals.
It's not remotely hypothetical [0], and if you don't know that then you really lack the basic table stakes of knowledge to be weighing in on this at all (as also evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge the UDHR).
”I'm not a visa holder. I wouldn't expect to be able to go to China and espouse anti-CCP rhetoric, either.”
You don’t expect to do those things in China because it’s an authoritarian government that doesn’t care about human rights A-Z (all the way from basic labor rights over to internment reeducation camps).
So the question is why are you applying a standard we have for China, which is just slightly above what we expect from North Korea, unto to America?
We are not the country that does shit like what you are describing. This is a temporary dark spot on American history, and you are absolutely on the wrong side of things. All of this joins the embarrassing catalog of American darkness - Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion act, segregation, list goes on.
Man, I'm getting emotionally worked up on a Saturday trying to change some [two words removed because hello HN guidelines]'s mind. I hope you're not on the same path as me.
I suggest we let him think what he wants to think. I find it curious anyway when people say they don't consider hypotheticals, humans are all about hypotheticals ("what's going to happen if x happens..."), even apes do so. Not considering them means wanting to be as intelligent as amoebas, and the [term has been deleted] we're trying to converse with seems to be proud of that.
> What is the source of this righteous indignation? You think countries invite foreigners here with the patronizing attitude of “you’re lucky to be here, don’t say a fucking word”?
Yes, I do think that's how countries invite foreigners.
> Try your best to not sound so unfuckable.
Looks like I hit a nerve. I'm sure you're a great houseguest.
This term "sitting" is doing a lot of work. Have you seen the guy's posture? I guess the term "teetering on the edge of a chair president" doesn't have the same ring to it.
